Ooo I like silver; never thought of that! I think that's quite appropriate since this line will terminate in White Bear Lake. But I agree that a "fancy bus" doesn't deserve a color.

a) Implement aBRT per Metro Transit's plan
b) Initiate all-day express bus service on 265 (current frequencies are abysmal) and work on increasing corridor ridership
c) Reserve the final LPA for LRT in Phalen/RC ROW per Alternative 8. We can wait for the best option, and I think this is it.

I think I agree with bptenor, as well. I'm just worried about how long it will take. There is a proposal for a 100 unit apartment building at Payne and Phalen Blvd. Phalen Blvd is a good place for a transit line, in my opinion.

Also, if the aBRT plan is implemented, I'm curious how they will do the routes 61 and 54. Currently, the 61 goes, infrequently, along 7th and Arcade. The 54 would do the same, though I don't know the frequency. The aBRT would also take that route. That would lead to a hell of a lot of bus traffic on those two streets. I like the 64, but I feel Phalen and Payne deserve a bit better in the mix.

After an LPA is selected, the Metropolitan Council has to amend the line into the Transportation Policy Plan. That's when a color will be assigned.

Metro Transit's arterial BRT study, conducted about 5 years ago, said that the E 7th line would use Arcade, Maryland, and White Bear Avenue to reach Maplewood Mall. The 61 would be truncated to Maryland and Arcade. Metro Transit's service improvement plan also mentions large improvements to the 61, including longer span of service, more frequent service, and Sunday service.

I think that with all the programmed and potential improvements, the N/NE part of Saint Paul is due for a route restructure. 62 could become full frequent, 3 could be transitioned into a Maryland crosstown line and removed from Rice St, 71 could be simplified and improved, and 54/64 restructured and rationalized.

Tcmetro wrote:3 could be transitioned into a Maryland crosstown line and removed from Rice St

I think about this constantly. There isn't a single crosstown bus across 35E between downtown Saint Paul and Larpenteur (Arlington on the west). To Ward 6 by bike from here is 2.5 miles and maybe twenty minutes on a bike; it's 4.5 miles and 45 minutes by bus, not including a half-mile walk. If I lived farther south, I'd have to bus downtown. It's awful.

This would take a lot more thought, but yes, a full restructure of routes north and northeast of downtown is desperately needed. The lines on the map are far from intuitive, and there are vast swatches that aren't covered by any practical service. I live downtown St Paul, so I have an easier time than some, but it still takes an awfully long time to get anywhere north or east.

I didn't intend it to be a fantasy map of train routes, but rather which bus routes should see upgrade to aBRT in addition to the studied ones. I didn't think about rationalizing the remaining locals, however. As always, I'd probably change a few things if I went back again. At the time, I liked the idea of a 3->aBRT still serving downtown, but could easily be convinced otherwise.

IIRC, I wanted to leave as many of the aBRT routes as possible the way MT studied them to avoid changing implementation costs. I also did NOT include the Rush Line as part of my "regional transit on the cheap" proposal, which may have influenced routing decisions. Not here to defend any choices.

Pages 36-39 show downtown routing options. I thought Option 8 was out because it interlines with Green Line, but it's still discussed here. I really like how Options 1 & 8 offer a connection with the Green Line at Robert Street without having to go all the way through downtown. This provides a quicker east-west ride if downtown is not the destination.

I would not be surprised if this plan is ultimately mothballed, meeting its fate by a combination of resistance (running buses along the Vento trail is not going to be popular) and lack of enthusiasm (BRT not politically sexy, especially at $650MM).

Metro Transit is rolling out the 54 extension to Maplewood Mall, so Ramsey County is using that as justification for not selecting aBRT (because Metro Transit is effectively already doing so, without the fancy stations and new buses). This is what we get for letting politicians plan our transit system, instead of allowing professional transit planners to make decisions. I'll be shocked, shocked if this dedicated BRT plan gets built as currently planned. "half the ridership of Gateway for 1.3x the cost!" is a real winner with the FTA, I'm sure.

Unless somehow dedicated BRT is also chosen for Riverview and the two projects get interlined and go through the FTA process as one line, this thing ain't getting built anytime soon.

I actually think this should be put on the shelf, while allowing the 54 extension to become a raging success and gradually upgraded to aBRT. If Riverview is built out as light rail / streetcar "hybrid", as seems somewhat likely, it may be best to later pursue the Rush corridor as a future extension of that line, but that only works after Riverview is up and running. If Riverview LRT/streetcar gets you as far as Lowertown, extending it north/east of there would seem an obvious proposition...eventually.

I live along the line (sort of, would be a long walk) and I have no desire for this line. the 54 extension does MOST of the job and will be implemented THIS YEAR. I work in Minneapolis and I've said it before, I think that the number of riders from Maplewood Mall to Mpls (270) far outweighs the MM to St Paul (265), and this is shown in the express frequencies.

New document day: http://media.wix.com/ugd/6977a0_3ef7e0b ... dfadca.pdf
Looks like Phalen Blvd is getting most of the attention. Big question in my mind is how an Arcade Street station would work.
If it's at the bridge it's close to both the Seeger Square shopping center (needs major redevelopment) and the Beacon Bluff / 3M undeveloped site. But it's not very "walkable" and would require an elevator.

I once imagined it going along Wells, through Seeger Square, then back to Phalen along Neid Lane. Further from Beacon Bluff site, closer to existing homes, would necessitate rebuilding the Seeger Square center, a welcome consequence!